Delhi High Court
Indian Coffee Workers Co-Op. ... vs Mehtab Chand Jain on 8 September, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC. REV. No. 302/2012
% 8th September, 2014
INDIAN COFFEE WORKERS CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD. ......Petitioner
Through: None.
VERSUS
MEHTAB CHAND JAIN ...... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
C.M. No.11814/2012 (exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
C.M. stands disposed of.
+ RC. REV. No.302/2012 and C.M. No.11815/2012
2. On the first call, a pass over was sought. At the time of
granting pass over, it was made clear that in view of the adjournments being
sought on behalf of the petitioner on five times earlier the matter will not be
adjourned, and that the case should be argued. However, no one is present
on behalf of the petitioner even on the second call.
RCR No.302/2012 Page 1 of 5
3. The challenge by means of this petition under Section 25-B(8)
of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is
to the impugned judgment dated 02.05.2011 of the trial court decreeing the
bonafide necessity eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. The
case has been decreed after evidence/trial. The respondent/landlord filed the
case for bonafide necessity pleading that the tenanted premises were
required for the commercial purposes of the respondent and his family
members viz his sons. The tenanted premises are a godown on the ground
floor of the property bearing no.6029-6037, 1-UB, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi-
110007 measuring 41'X 16'.
4. In the property, different portions were occupied by different
tenants besides by the landlord and his family members. The occupation of
different portions by the persons was duly proved in terms of the different
site plans of the different floors being Ex.PW1/1, Ex. PW1/1A, Ex. PW1/1B,
Ex. PW1/1C and Ex. PW1/1D i.e with respect to mezzanine floor, first floor,
second floor and the third floor respectively. There was no challenge by the
petitioner/tenant to the occupation of the different portions of the property
by different tenants and the family members of the respondent and this is
noted by the Additional Rent Controller in the following terms in the
RCR No.302/2012 Page 2 of 5
impugned judgment and wherein another aspect is also mentioned that there
is no challenge to the number of family members of the
respondent/landlord:-
"It is not in dispute between the parties that the petitioner and his other
three brothers are also residing in the suit premises and that the
petitioner is doing his business of sale and trading of garments and a
firm namely Subha Creation is in the name of the petitioner's wife.
In the cross examination of the PW1 there is no question or suggestion
being asked on behalf of the respondent to deny the extent of
accommodation available with the petitioner and his brothers in the suit
premises. Even the site plans Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/1-D are not been
disputed. No question or suggestion has been asked to the PW 1 in his
cross examination to deny the veracity of the site plans. There is also no
question or suggestion been put to the PW1 to deny that the office
space available with the petitioner is not a small space. The extent of
accommodation available with the petitioner and his family and with
his other brothers is deemed to be admitted by the respondent.
Moreover, the requirement of the petitioner of the suit property to start
business for his sons cannot be said to be not a bonafide one
considering that the petitioner has two sons and that the petitioner only
has a space of small office at Kamla Nagar and no accommodation
available in the suit premises for starting a business for his sons."
5. I do not find any illegality in the aforesaid reasoning and
conclusion of the Additional Rent Controller because once the site plans are
not disputed, obviously the stand of the respondent with respect to
occupation of the different portions of the property by the family members
of the respondent and his other brothers stood admitted. Additional Rent
RCR No.302/2012 Page 3 of 5
Controller was therefore justified in arriving at a conclusion that the
suit/tenanted premises were required bonafidely by the sons of the
respondent for carrying on the business.
6. So far as the aspect of ownership of the respondent/landlord is
concerned, this has been held in favour of the respondent/landlord in terms
of the following observations of the Additional Rent Controller:-
"Now I will proceed to examine the second contention of the learned
counsel for the respondent that the petitioner is not the exclusive owner
of the suit property on the basis of the material and the evidence on the
record. PW-1 has deposed in his examination in chief that he alongwith
his other three brothers are the co-owners of the suit property. The
PW-1 has also filed the copy of the sale deed Ex. PW-1/4 to prove their
ownership of the suit property. PW-1 has further deposed that the
tenanted portion which is in tenancy of the respondent comes in his
share as per family settlement arrived amongst the co-sharers and he is
receiving rent from the respondent by cheque and there is a relationship
of landlord and tenant between him and the respondent. PW-1 in his
cross-examination has stated that the family settlement was not in
writing but it was oral and mutual and after the settlement the suit
property has fallen in his share. He further deposed that after the family
settlement the rent paid by the tenant through cheques used to be in his
name till date. There is no question or suggestion put to the PW-1 in his
cross examination to deny the rent was not been paid by the respondent
to the petitioner. There is also no question or suggestion put to the
PW-1 to deny the ownership and the relationship of landlord and tenant
between the petitioner and the respondent, even there is no question or
suggestion been put to the PW-1 to deny the oral family settlement
between the petitioner and his brothers."
RCR No.302/2012 Page 4 of 5
7. I do not find any illegality in the aforesaid reasoning and
conclusion because no doubt the family settlement was oral but the
petitioner had paid rent to the respondent by cheques and also there was no
question in cross-examination of PW1 to dispute this aspect that rent was
paid to the respondent/landlord. Also, there was no suggestion in the cross-
examination questioning/denying the ownership of the respondent/landlord.
8. Powers under Section 25-B(8) of the Act of the revisions are
not to be exercised once there is one possible and plausible view taken by
the Additional Rent Controller. In fact, in my opinion, Additional Rent
Controller has taken the only possible view that the respondent/landlord is
the owner of the suit premises and that the tenanted premises are required
bonafidely by the respondent/landlord for the business purpose of his sons
because they have no other alternative suitable premises.
9. Dismissed.
SEPTEMBER 08, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
